APHC010205932026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 124/2026 Between: 1. P. MARY ANNAPOORNI @ A. ANNAPOORNI, W/O A. VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, CHRISTIAN, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO. 19-22/A, OLD CHECK POST, PILLAPALEM, RENIGUNTA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A VIJAYA KUMAR, S/o A. Venkatarayulu, aged about 59 years, Christian, Railway Employee (Diesel Driver), R/o Harijanawada, Nagireddypalli Village, Nandalur Mandal, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased topleased to withdraw and transfer the D.O.P.No.03 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa Distric to the Senior Civil Judge's Court, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the 2 petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings in D.O.P.No.03 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa Distric including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the transfer petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURE MAHENDRA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.124 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”), seeking transfer of D.O.P. No. 3 of 2023 from the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, for trial and disposal. 2. The case of the petitioner/wife, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 12.09.1990 at Pentecost Church, Chittoor District, in accordance with Christian rites and customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Renigunta, Tirupati District. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, with an intention to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed D.O.P. No. 3 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, and the same is pending adjudication. It is further pleaded that the distance between 4 Renigunta, Tirupati District, and Rajampet, Kadapa District, is approximately 150 kilometres and that the petitioner, being a woman aged about 58 years and having no independent financial support, would suffer grave hardship in attending the proceedings at Rajampet, Kadapa District. The petitioner further pleaded that it is very difficult for her to appear before the learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and therefore, she is constrained to file the present petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife. 4. There is no representation for the respondent/husband. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie discloses that, owing to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Renigunta, Tirupati District. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband filed D.O.P. No. 3 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, and that the same is pending adjudication. 5 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera1, held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha2, held as follows: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and in view of the ratio laid down 1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 6 in the aforesaid judgments that, in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be given due consideration rather than the inconvenience of the husband, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are justifiable grounds to allow the request of the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of D.O.P. No. 3 of 2023 from the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet. 10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and D.O.P. No. 3 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The learned III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, shall transmit the entire case record in D.O.P. No. 3 of 2023 to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, duly indexed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, and interim orders, if any granted earlier, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 8th May, 2026 Lsp